Laserfiche WebLink
reduction in the vehicle portion of the transportation fee, roughly a 9 percent reduction in the overall SDC. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner asked if it would be possible to have a distinct class of node for the downtown area. Mr. <br />McVey surmised it would be feasible to pass a resolution designating a certain treatment of the downtown <br />area in the context of the nodal adjustment. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. McVey stated there was data on project expenditures <br />downtown. However, he felt it misleading to look at project expenditures on a localized basis as the system <br />as a whole served the traveling public. Ms. Bettman responded that, should a decision to collect fees within <br />a specific boundary be considered, it would be informative to have the data. She asserted that the technical <br />justification for the rate changes was a lesser need for SDCs for projects built downtown due to less trip <br />generation and this demonstrated a need for the rate changes. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman supported the staff recommendation for the methodology as it was fair and responsive to the <br />council's request to be revenue-neutral. She favored the existing methodology. She noted the <br />preponderance of new development projects lay on the periphery of the City. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. McVey said there was a waiver of transportation SDCs for <br />low-income housing. He added that the downtown area was assessed SDCs as a multi-tenant office or <br />shopping center, which provided some incentives for development. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson commented that it was not surprising that the investment fell largely in the development of <br />new roads and services to new residences. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Mr. McVey said he could not speak directly to the data from <br />Lane Transit District (LTD) on how many trips were made to downtown as a destination and how many <br />trips were a ~pass through," but he felt it could be useful. Ms. Nathanson felt there were incentives and <br />discounts in place for development downtown. She asked if there were other reasonable and affordable <br />options that could be put into place. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly reiterated his support for the ~revenue-neutral" proposal that had been defeated at the meeting in <br />July. <br /> <br />Mr. McVey said, in response to a question from Mr. Kelly, that the waiver for low-income housing was <br />currently a waiver and not a subsidy. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner asked the boundary of the downtown node. Mr. McVey explained it was not yet designated as <br />a node. Mr. Meisner supported the designation of the downtown area as a node for transportation SDC <br />purposes and said he wanted to direct staff to undertake this. Mr. McVey commented that the council would <br />have the opportunity through looking at the Downtown Plan Update to look into how this could occur. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ asked if any developments had been held back because of the council action. Mr. McVey replied <br />that he had not heard any anecdotal evidence to that end. He felt it was not having a large impact on choices <br />as to where development would locate. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey cited several calls he had received from people who had moved from one part of downtown to <br />another part of downtown and had been slapped with substantial fees, though the business activity had not <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 12, 2003 Page 2 <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> <br /> <br />